RE: [Quickfix-developers] NoRelatedSym Class

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 454-5900

Thanks Gene. i didn't realise this, sorry. i'll carry on with validation
enabled.

Cheers
Mike

On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 14:26, Gene Gorokhovsky wrote:
> Yes, without validation (DataDict defined in settings)
> group receiving is broken. This should be highlighted
> in documentation because almost everyone has run into
> it.
>=20
> Gene
> --- Mike Hepburn <mi...@an...> wrote:
> > All,
> >=20
> > Some further testing reveals that without validation
> > (i.e no
> > DataDictionary defined) the acceptor dump of the
> > incoming message
> > appears wrong:
> >=20
> > sent:
> > <message>
> >   <header>
> >     <field number=3D"8" value=3D"FIX.4.3"/>
> >     <field number=3D"35" value=3D"V"/>
> >   </header>
> >   <body>
> >     <field number=3D"146" value=3D"1"/>
> >     <field number=3D"262" value=3D"1"/>
> >     <field number=3D"263" value=3D"0"/>
> >     <field number=3D"264" value=3D"0"/>
> >     <field number=3D"267" value=3D"1"/>
> >     <group>
> >       <field number=3D"55" value=3D"tsco.l"/>
> >     </group>
> >     <group>
> >       <field number=3D"269" value=3D"0"/>
> >     </group>
> >   </body>
> >   <trailer>
> >   </trailer>
> > </message>
> >=20
> >=20
> > received(no validation):
> >  <message>
> >   <header>
> >     <field number=3D"8" value=3D"FIX.4.3"/>
> >     <field number=3D"9" value=3D"94"/>
> >     <field number=3D"35" value=3D"V"/>
> >     <field number=3D"34" value=3D"3"/>
> >     <field number=3D"49" value=3D"CLIENT1"/>
> >     <field number=3D"52" value=3D"20030430-11:21:01"/>
> >     <field number=3D"56" value=3D"AM"/>
> >   </header>
> >   <body>
> >     <field number=3D"55" value=3D"tsco.l"/>
> >     <field number=3D"146" value=3D"1"/>
> >     <field number=3D"262" value=3D"1"/>
> >     <field number=3D"263" value=3D"0"/>
> >     <field number=3D"264" value=3D"0"/>
> >     <field number=3D"267" value=3D"1"/>
> >     <field number=3D"269" value=3D"0"/>
> >   </body>
> >   <trailer>
> >     <field number=3D"10" value=3D"224"/>
> >   </trailer>
> > </message>
> >=20
> > It looks like message XML encoding still has bugs
> > for repeating groups ?
> > i ran ethereal over the connection to see if it was
> > the encoding or
> > decoding - looks like it is the encoding:
> >=20
> > Transmission Control Protocol, Src Port: 46450
> > (46450), Dst Port: 5001
> > (5001), Seq: 1717567461, Ack: 1741597886, Len: 116
> >     Source port: 46450 (46450)
> >     Destination port: 5001 (5001)
> >     Sequence number: 1717567461
> >     Next sequence number: 1717567577
> >     Acknowledgement number: 1741597886
> >     Header length: 32 bytes
> >     Flags: 0x0018 (PSH, ACK)
> >         0... .... =3D Congestion Window Reduced (CWR):
> > Not set
> >         .0.. .... =3D ECN-Echo: Not set
> >         ..0. .... =3D Urgent: Not set
> >         ...1 .... =3D Acknowledgment: Set
> >         .... 1... =3D Push: Set
> >         .... .0.. =3D Reset: Not set
> >         .... ..0. =3D Syn: Not set
> >         .... ...0 =3D Fin: Not set
> >     Window size: 6432
> >     Checksum: 0x9704 (correct)
> >     Options: (12 bytes)
> >         NOP
> >         NOP
> >         Time stamp: tsval 250859949, tsecr 245892923
> > Financial Information eXchange Protocol
> >     BeginString (8): FIX.4.3
> >     BodyLength (9): 94
> >     MsgType (35): V
> >     MsgSeqNum (34): 3
> >     SenderCompID (49): CLIENT1
> >     SendingTime (52): 20030430-11:21:01
> >     TargetCompID (56): AM
> >     NoRelatedSym (146): 1
> >     Symbol (55): tsco.l
> >     MDReqID (262): 1
> >     SubscriptionRequestType (263): 0
> >     MarketDepth (264): 0
> >     NoMDEntryTypes (267): 1
> >     MDEntryType (269): 0
> >     CheckSum (10): 224
> >=20
> > Frame 2 (66 bytes on wire, 66 bytes captured)
> >=20
> > The 'on the wire' message doesn't have the group's
> > defined either.
> >=20
> > Does anyone else see this using the java bindings,
> > FIX43.xml and
> > repeating groups ?
> > =20
> > Cheers
> > Mike=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 10:52, Mike Hepburn wrote:
> > > Hi Oren,
> > >=20
> > > i have narrowed this down to being a java problem.
> > I added a validation
> > > test in C++ for the MarketDataRequest message and
> > it passed OK. the XML
> > > data structure (from toXML()) produced by C++ and
> > java is identical.
> > >=20
> > > Unfortunately there are no java bindings for the
> > DataDictionary class -
> > > so i couldn't repeat the test in java. i
> > considered implementing
> > > DataDictionary::validate via jni but thought
> > something more basic must
> > > be going on.
> > >=20
> > > in java the data dictionary (FIX43.xml) appears to
> > load OK and validate
> > > other message types (e.g NewOrderSingle's) OK - my
> > next step is to strip
> > > the DataDictionary XML file down to only have the
> > MarketDataRequest to
> > > see if i get further.
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Cheers
> > > Mike
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 20:13, Oren Miller wrote:
> > > > Yeah.  DataDictionary is a good place to start.=20
> > I would take a look at the DataDictionaryTestCase.=20
> > If there is a problem, it will probably be one of
> > two things. 1) the XML file is not being loaded
> > correctly2) there is a problem with the validation
> > itself You can verify #2 by adding some asserts to
> > the readFromFile test.  If you do not detect a
> > problem there, then you can add tests to
> > checkIsInMessage (test for the code that determines
> > a field belongs to a message), and checkValidFormat
> > (test for full validation of a message). You may
> > want to synch up with CVS so that you have the
> > latest code and tests. If you want to debug or use
> > trace statements instead. I would recommend creating
> > a DD XML file that only contains the message you are
> > concerned with.  You can then look for problems
> > reading from the file or validating.  I prefer,
> > however, to have a failing test that exposes the
> > problem before I venture into the code. Let use know
> > if you find anything or if you need any other!
> > > >  pointers.  If you are able to provide a small
> > project that can demonstrate the error, that would
> > allow myself and others to be more active in helping
> > you.  Good luck. mike <mi...@an...> wrote:HI
> > Oren, yes, both the acceptor and receiver use the
> > same quickfix library & share the same
> > DataDictionary (my app is written uses the java
> > bindings to QF and both statically load the quickfix
> > library via jni). is there a good place for me to
> > put some debug in the source to get to the bottom of
> > this ? is DataDistionary.cpp a good place to start ?
> > CheersMike-----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Oren Miller [mailto:ore...@ya...]=20
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 6:31 PM
> > > > To: Mike Hepburn; quickfix
> > > > Subject: RE: [Quickfix-developers] NoRelatedSym
> > Class
> > > >=20
> > > > Did you link the patched version to the
> > receiving application as well?
> > > >=20
> > > > Mike Hepburn <mi...@an...> wrote: Hi All,
> > > >=20
> > > > i also seem to have problems using the group
> > NoRelatedSym in a
> > > > MarketDataRequest message. i have followed the
> > previous threads on this
> > > > but to no avail.
> > > >=20
> >=20
> =3D=3D=3D message truncated =3D=3D=3D
>=20
> > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature
> name=3Dsignature.asc
>=20
>=20
>=20
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
--=20
___________________________________________________________________

Mike Hepburn                            Phone:  +44 (0)207 749 7900
Anvil Software Limited                  Fax:    +44 (0)207 749 7916
51-53 Rivington Street                  E-mail: mi...@an...
London EC2A 3SE                                 ef...@ho...